Denton v. Michel's Bakery Co.,

• Decision Date: 03 January 1950
• Citation: 70 A.2d 284,363 Pa. 502
• Parties: DENTON v. MICHEL'S BAKERY CO. et al.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

70 A.2d 284

363 Pa. 502

DENTON v. MICHEL'S BAKERY CO. et al.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

January 3, 1950

Argued November 16, 1949

Appeal, No. 194, Jan. T., 1949, from order of Court of Common Pleas No. 3 of Philadelphia County, Dec. T., 1947, No. 3030 in case of Paul D. Denton, Jr. v. Michel's Bakery Co. et al. Order reversed.

Trespass for personal injuries. Before MILNER, J.

Verdicts in favor of defendants; plaintiff's motion for new trial granted as to both defendants. Original defendant appealed.

The order granting a new trial as to the defendant Michel's Bakery Company is reversed.

Thomas E. Comber, Jr., with him Pepper, Bodine, Stockes &amp Hamilton , for appellant.

James E. Gallagher, Jr., with him Wilson Stradley and Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young , for plaintiff appellee.

Robert A. Detweiler and George H. Detweiler , for individual defendant, appellee.

Before MAXEY, C.J., DREW, LINN, STERN, PATTERSON, STEARNE and JONES, JJ.

OPINION

MR. JUSTICE HORACE STERN

Plaintiff was in an automobile which was being driven by a friend, Kenneth Parker, and which came into collision at a street intersection with a truck owned and operated by Michel's Bakery Company. To recover damages for the injuries he sustained he brought suit against both Parker and the Bakery Company. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants. Plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial assigning in support thereof nine reasons. The court en banc rejected all of these except two which it sustained, namely, that the court erred in charging that plaintiff could not recover against Parker for the latter's negligence, and that the court erred in failing to charge that the defendants could be jointly liable to plaintiff. Because of these two assumed errors the court granted a new trial as against both defendants, from which order the Bakery Company appeals.

It appears that the car in which plaintiff was riding was owned by his brother-in-law who, on the this occasion, allowed plaintiff and Parker to use it. At the time of the accident they were on their way to a restaurant for breakfast, and they also intended to make some business calls. The question as to the relationship between Parker, who was driving the car, and plaintiff, who was seated therein, is of no legal importance in the case because, whatever it was, plaintiff was entitled to recover from Parker if the latter was negligent in the operation of the car, for no person may negligently injure another without being responsible for damages: Johnson v. Hetrick , 300 Pa. 225, 232, 150 A. 477, 479; Perry v. Ryback , 302 Pa. 559, 564, 153 A. 770, 771; Hopshire v. Yesenosky , 157 Pa.Super. 545, 547; 43 A.2d 351, 352. But while it is true, therefore, that the court erred in charging the jury that plaintiff could not recover against Parker for the latter's negligence, this was a pure error of law which did not affect the liability of the Bakery Company either factually or legally. Since it concerned only Parker, and did not involve any question in regard to the way in which the accident happened, it did not warrant the granting of a new trial as to the Bakery Company or the nullification of the verdict in favor of that defendant: Fitzpatrick, Administratrix, v. Sheppard , 346 Pa. 240, 29 A.2d 475; cf. Frank v. W.S. Losier & Co., Inc., 361 Pa. 272, 277, 64 A.2d 829, 831.

That the court failed to charge that the defendants could be jointly liable to plaintiff was not error at all. If Parker was not negligent there could not, of course, have been a recovery from him ,...